Search results

In this article, I take a critical approach to the marginalisation of the grief experienced by first mothers who have experienced the non-consensual adoption of a child in England, in a context within which welfare benefits and services intended to support the most disadvantaged families have been dramatically curtailed. With reference to the concepts of disenfranchised grief and ambiguous loss, and in light of some identified parallels between the death of a child and the loss of a child to adoption, I draw upon literature from the field of bereavement studies in presenting findings arising from semi-structured interviews in which 17 first mothers sorted through artefacts such as toys, clothing and blankets associated with their now-adopted children and reflected upon the meanings that such keepsakes had taken on in their lives after loss. Respondents' accounts revealed that artefacts were invested with high value, and could operate as vehicles for memories of time spent caring for children. It was found that interacting with artefacts could bring comfort, evoking in mothers sensory memories of the smell and feel of their now-adopted child. Interactions with artefacts were found to hold capacity to affirm respondents' maternal status, as well as symbolising oppression and injustice, sometimes evoking strong feelings of anger directed towards professionals involved in children's adoption.

AbstractA wide‐ranging literature has explored the relationship between research, knowledge and policy. However, legislatures have often been overlooked in this research. While some studies have looked at 'who has access', the literature on how parliaments seek to engage with knowledge claims is particularly scarce. This article addresses this gap through a case study of UK select committees. By adopting an interpretive lens, the article explores how MPs and officials make sense of evidence in committee settings. It finds that legalistic definitions around 'evidence' shape wider beliefs in how to engage with knowledge claims and the practices of undertaking inquiries, and are underpinned by a distinctly political function of knowledge use in politics. Beliefs around evidence have significant repercussions and highlight tensions (i) around the authority of committee reports, (ii) between epistemic and democratic claims and (iii) with respect to who is included and who is excluded.

Much has been written about the free speech quasi-jurisprudence being developed by social media platforms through content moderation policies unconstrained by constitutional limits. This Article focuses on a specific subset of that content moderation—namely, the takedown of user-generated content in the name of copyright enforcement. This Article argues that the unlimited power of online platforms to regulate access to user-generated content through antipiracy algorithms leads to three perverse outcomes. First, the removal of lawful content falsely flagged as "infringing" results in the suppression of legitimate speech and a reduction in the diversity of online discourse. Second, the erosion of lawful exceptions and limitations to copyright protection through algorithmic adjudication alters the fundamental social contract established by copyright legislation, displaces decades of carefully developed fair use jurisprudence, and transfers adjudicatory power from courts to corporations. Third, the monetization of user-generated content not by users, but by copyright owners (following the flagging of content as "infringing"), is symptomatic of a broader, systemic exploitation of users that is occurring on digital platforms, also known as "technofeudalism."

In what ways do practices, relationships and interpretations of scrutiny affect accountability relationships in legislatures? This article examines this question through a detailed study of select committees in the UK House of Commons. Drawing on a number of qualitative methods, this article argues that we can understand accountability in the House of Commons more effectively if we examine the underlying beliefs and practices about scrutiny by MPs and parliamentary officials. This article makes an important contribution in helping scholars to better understand how committees behave and from where they derive their authority. These affect the priorities of committee-based accountability, the style and focus of committee hearings, and the ability of committees to build consensus, with wider implications for the study of accountability.

This article explores the potential of the concept of 'dilemma', as introduced in Mark Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes' interpretive political science, to understand and explain change within and beyond political institutions. This article argues that the current conceptualisation of the concept has been underdeveloped and the potential opportunities of using it have been overlooked. The concept of dilemmas must be developed in two directions: first, through a greater linkage with everyday practices and, second, through a greater linkage to the concept of power. To do so, this article draws on insights from the concept of 'problematisation' as a way to explain change. This adds more detail to dilemmas by arguing that, while dilemmas pose problems for existing beliefs and webs of belief, they also erect boundaries over what is an acceptable answer or resolution to dilemmas. It is this simple yet key insight that offers an opportunity to further strengthen interpretive political science, and offers much potential for future research on political change.